If I could change one thing it would be that I would have a cushy government job making half a million a year doing nothing more than riding around in my truck playing Carly Simon, hunting duck and deer, and drinking beer. ...and Catherine Bell would be forced to be my second wife.
Martin & NoLimit, we've been talking about the War on Drugs alot in my Economics class. The War on Drugs is very ineffective because it only effects supply (you'd have to understand supply & demand, which I assume you do). The Govt is spending tremendous resources to decrease the supply of drugs which barely reduces the quantity demanded, it only pushes the prices up. This actually leads to an increase in crime because people aren't going to quit doing drugs because of the prices, their just going to work harder (illegally) to get the money. What the Govt needs to do is decrease Demand through public knowledge & whatever other means necessary. They are trying with their "anti-drug" commercials and such, but those are all aimed marijuana and suck, they don't work at all. A decrease in demand would drive prices down (reducing crime) and decrease the amount supplied & demanded much more effectively. However, IMO it's part of the govt's duty to shield the public from seriously harmful stuff like crack, heroin etc. Red, I really like your ideas about 2 & 3 - reducing campaign times & corporate contributors. However, for number 1, what system would work better than the winner take all method? Europe has a system that forces alliances between parties because nobody can win a majority and IMO it doesn't make the situation any better. Also, as I said I think the parties will both reform and move closer to the center before any true center party ever emerges as a real threat to them. Do ya'll feel that the system of checks & balances is working properly? What did the founding fathers intend that hasn't worked as well as they hoped? Another thing I don't like about our political system, is that I think idiots get elected. I don't care what anybody thinks about George W. Bush or Governor Blanco (In fact, name an elected officials and chances are pretty good that this person should have never been trusted with a position of power) - they are idiots. Our system has decayed to the point that the person with the most connections gets to the top, not the person with the best ideas, best theories and leadership skills.
my opinion is that this is an individual's responsibility and this is a paternalistic stance by the government. this is sort of a futile war anyways. (i throw in another book recommendation here: "saying yes" by jacob sullum). if you want to smoke crack, thats cool with me, if thats the way you like to party. i dont want to pay my dollars to stop you and jail you. your life is yours. oddly enough my experience with drug users is that the people who i have known who i have respected most have been incredibly fearless experimenters with really dangerous drugs.
Martin, you'd still rather your kids not have to deal with people offering them crack on their way to school. You say this about not minding drugs being out, but I'm not sure you completely believe it. Having laws against drugs atleast pushes it away from the public eye, out of the way of your ordinary day. People would be more succeptible to trying drugs if they run rampart every where. Often times highly intelligent people have the power to experiment with drugs and be alright, quit on their own. However, the general population doesn't have this advantage. Once a normal person tries crack, there's no turning back - they're f*)#@d.
but ask yourself this question: "is it my responsibility as a taxpayer to prevent peeps from destroying themselves?" besides nobody would offer your kids crack on the way to school, any more than they would offer them beer now. it wouldnt be a black market thing. nobody would buy it on the street, those guys would be out of business because you could buy it in normal stores. also there would be a massive reduction of violence and crime. also i think the addictiveness of drugs is overstated. i know a normal person who tried crack. she didnt go crazy and it was just sort of thing to try. when she told me, i was like "damn thats some scary ****", but after a while i realized it wasnt a big deal. i even dated her for a while, i liked to tell my friends i was dating a crack whore. it was hot.
Well, we can pretty much throw that fantasy out the window. It'll never happen. How about something more realistic?
Damn CParso...long a$$ post...I'll try to summarize my thoughts on it. 1 -- Econ and drugs. Glad they're still teaching the truth there! I was an econ/ITF undergrad, and that was good stuff then. Still is. 2 -- Red is dead on w/ the PAC's and campaign times. Not sure if you're taking comparative politics, but if so, correct me if I'm wrong. I think Italy uses a more representative form of elections, whereby 49.999% of the populace isn't ignored in the legislative body. IMO, this would be more effective in the US than in Italy (where they have such crazy parties!) and would give rational people a voice. Just a thought, anyway. Wouldn't work for the Presidency. 3 -- Checks and balances -- I really thought it was working OK until the privacy issues have come up in conjunction w/ the Patriot Act. However, I think the checks and balances willl come around in this area too. It's all cyclical, and our overall system ain't too shabby. The courts make some inexplicable rulings, but for the most part, they're pretty effective. 4 -- Idiots are clearly the ones getting elected. Very few truly intelligent or successful people would want to subject themselves to the scrutiny of politics, when there's MUCH more money (and happiness) available in the private sector.
Martin, I agree it's paternalistic and in theory shouldn't be the government's business. In practice, though, it's easy to see the issues that arise with highly addictive drugs and the lengths people will go to in order to fund their habit. Of course, we haven't seen the effects legalization would have on pricing, but it probably wouldn't be enough to convince a crackhead that he shouldn't rob somebody to fund his habit. The other thing is if the drugs make people raging psychotics...probably best to have fewer of them on the streets.
2- I took Comparative Politics last year, so my memory is a little hazy. The thing about Europe is that everything is exagerated over there. Right wing parties are so far right that in America they would be considered lunatics - same thing goes for left wing. They also have generally 10 or more parties getting votes. I don't think the United States needs this. 10 parties means they are bickering over some stupid $hit. I can see what you mean about 49% of the population being ignored, but I'm not convinced the European model would be better here. The truth is, we need something as a catalyst to make both political parties here in America realize that they are expanding to far to the extremes for the general public - whatever it takes. It could be one very special candidate, it could be the emergence of a new party, it could be simply discussing introducing a new political system. 3- I agree with you. My doubts in the judicial system are the only reason that I wonder how well the system of checks & balances will continue to work.
And as Red mentioned, the electoral college probably needs to go. People think that their vote doesn't matter because the electoral college decides the President anyway (A girl actually told me that like 2 days ago, which really made me change my mind about it.) The public has grown intelligent and knowledgable enough to make their own decision. However, it does seem like a nice system to have in case something were to happen where people all of a sudden wanted a dictator... But in that case, who would the electoral college be to deny the wishes of the public?
